Readers' comments

After a quick Grammarly review, I think the comma in "Legal pressure may make social media less open and free-flowing, as people’s. . ." could be removed and placed after the introductory clause, "On November 20th."

I'm sorry, but does Freedom of Speech not apply here???
An individual has a right to say what he or she wants. An institution such as a newspaper, however, is responsible for presenting an unbiased account of an event. When such an institution fails to do so, it is considered libel. Because an individual is not held to such a responsibility, they cannot be punished as such.

It is the way that Internet goes on with various incidents. Why bothers with legal actions? I hope his lord, after undergoing the cyber libel, would take it easy and adapt himself to his fellow countrymen's way on the internet.

Fortunately Lord McAlpine had the resources to defend himself. The accusations however made against him were grave indeed and fortunately his plight has highlighted the pernicious nature of such unfounded rumors. Pediatricians have been mistaken for pedophiles in England , and people have been killed. This is no joke at all and no laughing matter. It is very far from trivial.

At last! On-line Anonymity promotes irresponsibility of actions and speeches. A good development. As Jesus reminds us for every idle word you utter, you must face judgement. Think before you write especially if it has to do with someone´s reputation and make sure you have the evidence just in case you may have to defend yourself.

Rubbish. No one has a right to attack person another under whatever pretext without justification - there is no excuse of mistake here , every adult has the duty and responsibility to behave with restraint. What right has anyone to defame another person simply because they do not want to take the responsibility to take more care when they utter their speech or write ? All adults should be prepared to stand by their words and should exercise due care when
uttering them at all times. This is part of what it means to be a responsible adult. What Lord McAlpine was made endure was totally intolerable and , as far as I am concerned , totally unacceptable, especially for a man his age. What had he done to warrant such treatment ? You must be a totally irresponsible person to think that a casual apology would suffice. Lord McAlpines lawyers should come down as hard as possible on all those who were careless and callous enough to libel him without cause.
If people are not sure of their facts , then why utter them if you are a responsible adult ? The problem with too many so called adults these days is that they really do not wish to take on the full responsibility of being adults. We understand that children and juveniles might not know the consequences of their actions , but I am not prepared to allow an adult to get away with the consequences of his/her action especially when such action hurts others.
I do not have a twitter account, I have better things to do with my time. This new phenomenon of thinking that life is all about superficial endless silly talk underlines how shallow society has become. Perhaps the law is now moving in the right direction, although personally I don't think it has gone far enough, it should be more draconian and sufficiently severe to make those who use social networking sites and other forms of modern communication without compunction to refrain from doing if they have any uncertainty of what they wish to publish. 'If you can't stand the heat...' what utter rubbish. There is really no such thing as free speech. The right to speak as an adult must come with consequences and it is the mark of an adult that he/she is instinctively aware of this.
Perhaps if people like you were made to face long term jail sentences with hard labour , over what you think is a trivial matter but which in fact can have grave consequences you would have an idea of what real heat really is. People have been killed for falsely being accused of committing crimes they knew nothing about in England. As far as I am concerned such potential consequences are not trivial and should be dealt with robustly.
But it now goes to show, if my wife had done what the wife of the speaker of the house of commons did , my wife would certainly have caught hell from me. That the wife of the holder of such an esteemed office can see fit to behave in the manner in which she has behaved not only in this instance but in the past makes one shudder. Is there no longer any thought for the concepts of dignity , restraint or respect in our society ?

I do apologise for the errors in my post which I typed in such a fury , and with such furious haste , that in response to YankeeDoodle999 remark ( which I thought utterly flippant ) I was somewhat neglectful of the mistakes I had made. Once again I do apologise.

Gee! Imagine that you are responsible for what you communicate! How horrible! You might actually have to think first, rather than just puke-out some senseless slander or libel! I guess you can't remain 16 all your life . . .

Look, we all know that most people know very little about most subjects, and to comment-on or pass-on any mean rumour without some kind of fact-checking is just plain juvenile. Yes it really is.

Some people are afraid that they are losing their right to "free speech" but I say nonsense! Insisting on the right to harm others with your mouth or computer is anything but "free". Just ask the parents of the children and young adults who have killed theselves because of this kind of abuse.

I agree with you 100 %. It is about time adults really start behaving like adults.
Why do people think they must say something simply because they can , without bearing in mind the consequences of what they utter ?

In the USA messages on Twitter and public message boards that are demafamtory and maliciously false are considered SLANDER, not LIBEL. This is due to the conversational nature of Twitter/Message boards were comments are often not well thought through, the same as in verbal speach.

It is easier to prevail in a LIBEL lawsuit because the publisher of a newspaper or electronic media is presumed to go through a process of editing and fact-checking before publishing the article to a mass audience.

Due to the different standards of SLANDER vs. LIBEL, it is unlikely that anyone in the USA would be prosecuted for what they say on Twitter unless it could be proven that they were told to cease and desist then continued with knowledge that what they were saying was both damaging and materially false to certain individual(s).

This is the death of free speech by legal warfare. The libel laws need to be changed, fast, or deleted entirely.

@elsweb: you don't understanda the verdict. Tweeters are now being held responsible for the content of other people's links, so saying you just shared a link is no longer a defence. Which means people cannot/will not share links any longer for fear the contents of the link may not be 100% accurate and they will be held liable. This is insanity. The law is an ass.

It's actually very simple. Don't write derogatory comments and personal attacks on Twitter. If you want to share a link to published material then that's their material, but what was written was, hurtful, gave the impression that the writer had evidence and salacious.

Linking to published material would not necessarily render you immune, because it is a point of law that "tale bearers are as guilty as tale tellers." In other words, the re-tellers of false and malicious information are just as guilty as the originators.

Nevertheless, SLANDER (which is the law that relations to conversational chatter on Twitter) is very difficult to prove in U.S. law. In the USA slander and libel lies do not apply to anybody who is a "public figure." The laws also do not apply to anybody who answers the charges in public, because that is considered to be a remedy in itself. So, this is more of a theoretical than a practical question.

A point. When last I looked, we live in a country where one is entitled to 'free speech'. But with that freedom comes responsibility; a responsibility to guard ones tongue and verify the facts prior to placing them in the public domain, be that via verbal, written or 'soft copy'. Regardless of whom is issuing a statement, we are all subject to the current law and practice of the land. This current brouhaha is a salutary reminder of that fact.

Sally Bercow, the woman at the center of the Twitter libel allegation, is a beautiful blonde. She is the wife of the current Speaker of the House of Commons. Although the House of Commons is the lower house in the United Kingdom, it has legislative supremacy over the House of Lords, which is the upper house. The prime minister is always a member of the House of Commons and the prime minister can continue in power only if he has the support of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons no longer has confidence in the prime minister, the prime minister must resign or request that the queen dissolve Parliament. That would trigger a general election.

And so Sally Bercow is the wife of a very important man. She is the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons. She is only 43 years old. (She was born in 1969, the same year that I arrived in England.)

But she is not just a pretty blonde who is married to a powerful man. She is a political activist and a media personality. She campaigned actively not just for her husband, but also for Tony Blair and other political figures. She has considered running for office herself and becoming an MP in the Labour Party, although she acknowledges that the Twitter scandal has damaged her prospects of entering politics.

But the damage to her political career may have been done long before her problems with Twitter. She dropped out of Oxford after two years, but it seems that on her résumé she gave the impression that she graduated from Oxford. (She needed only one more year to graduate.) She was fired from a job as a result of this misrepresentation.

But it is her gorgeous beauty that has caused her the most damage and would forever doom any prospects of a political career. In 2009 she revealed that when she was in her twenties she would drink heavily and later go on one-night stands. And there is that photo of her wearing only a white bed sheet. That was in February of last year. (The photo is gorgeous and was so tastefully done. The bed sheet does not cover her completely. It leaves her right leg fully exposed, taking us deep within her gorgeous right thigh.)

And so Sally Bercow is a woman who is quite used to controversy. A beautiful woman who knows how to focus the spotlight on herself.

And now she has done it with Twitter. But her Twitter problems are more serious because libel issues are serious issues. She certainly needs to be careful about what she says about other people. She needs a little patience. Patience in framing her thoughts. And patience in framing her onslaught. Innuendo requires patience.

Innuendo is a powerful means of launching an attack. Not only is it a more powerful weapon, but it immunizes you against the charge of libel. It is a more powerful weapon because the reader feels that he has gotten there on his own. But you have led him there. Through innuendo you have helped the reader make his own inferences. And when you let the reader infer what you want to say, a more powerful impression is made on him because he has to think a little. He has to get there by himself. And innuendo allows you to restate the same thing over and over again in so many different ways. When you say directly what you want to say, you can only say it once.

Twitter doesn't give you the luxury of restating things in so many different ways. But instead of accusing the former Conservative Party treasurer of molesting children, she may have accomplished much of what she had set out to do by simply saying that the former treasurer is one who treasures the little ones.

Libel and defamation laws protect the reputation of every individual. They are laws that act as protective armor. A seemingly impenetrable shield against the onslaught of character assassins. But innuendo can be thought of as a powerful missile that is capable of penetrating the steely armor of libel and defamation laws.

Thanks for your tutorial on how to evade being sued for defamation.
Now , if in your opinion you find this woman pretty , that is your opinion to which you are well entitled. For the record , personally I do not find her pretty at all , and would never have found her pretty - I am sure I am not the only man who has this opinion. She is just not my type ; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Worse , she lacks grace and any sense of decorum which I find off putting in any woman. She could take lessons from the wife of the prime minister , and indeed also that of his deputy.
By the way , if you would help me , what is the definition of slag - I've misplaced my dictionary.

The Smith (2008) case resulted in a stay against Smith to stop him suing further individuals for libel - though it's clear from the judgment that the judge considers him a very determined litigant so McAlpine is not necessarily in the same position:http://freedomessex.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/smith-v-advfn-plc-ors-2008-ew...
"Are there really genuine issues which require to be resolved or is it the case, on the other hand, that this litigation when viewed as a whole, and in its proper context, is such as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute? Is there really any legitimate or tangible advantage to be gained? ...I am fully entitled to take into account the nature of the issues as they appear at the moment and that I am entitled to protect the interests of the public purse and of the many defendants involved in the light of those clear impressions. Indeed, I have an obligation to ensure that the court's process is being used compatibly with the overriding objective. The court is today required to be more proactive in such matters, especially when dealing with a number of people who cannot afford legal advice to protect their best interests.
"...It seems that there is the prospect of over 20 further libel actions.. It would be wasteful to let proceedings go forward merely on the footing of a series of formulaic assertions to the effect that the individual concerned did not honestly believe what he was saying. There is accordingly no realistic prospect of any such claims achieving the only legitimate goal of vindicating reputation.
"I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim. I am focusing only on these particular circumstances. It does seem to me appropriate to characterise these claims as totally without merit. I will therefore make an extended civil restraint order, which means that Mr Smith cannot launch any further libel proceedings arising out of the Langbar matter based upon bulletin board blogs without obtaining my written permission."

I do not accept this citation as being on all fours with Lord McAlpines case/s. It is perhaps because this defence has held in the past that people still think they can get away with defaming others without considering the potential consequences.
It is about time the courts make examples of enough individuals to drive home the point that no one should be feel that they are too small to become the subject of serious libel actions against them.

The Smith V ADVFN is about the closest you will get to the Twitter cases. There are similarities in the pre action protocol, conduct of solicitors, over compensation risk and studying and appreicating context rather than focusing on dictionary meanings of words. Defamation is all about context.

The case is probably the most useful to any libel defendants (and I do not mean just the reference to slander and the nature of bulletin boards/blogs)

That case is central to revealing the many, many weaknesses in the potential Twitter action.